Inaccuracies? What are they?

From: Harold Goodwin

So what are the inaccuracies in the film Visions of a Creek?

I was at the Opening of the Purifier Building yesterday evening, the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports spoke eloquently about the importance of shipbuilding in Faversham to our national history through so many important battles .It was good to see the completion of Phase 1 and to see what has been achieved by the workers who have brought the building back to industrial use.

There are still people muttering on about inaccuracies in the film . But the mutterers do not seem to be able to say what the inaccuracies are. We need to challenge them to “put up or shut up”. If there are inaccuracies post them on this site and hold the film maker and the speakers to account.

It seems to me the mutterers have not noticed that the film was called Visions of a Creek; recognising that there are many visions of what the future of the creek should be. That is why there is debate. That is what happens in democracies.

The mutterers, many of whom are in positions of power in the town, should be challenged. If there are inaccuracies they need to say what they are and stop this unworthy muttering campaign: “put up or shut up”.

When you hear the muttering challenge it.

5 thoughts on “Inaccuracies? What are they?

  1. Jill Holder


    This came through my door in answer to Ms White’s awful inaccuracies. These are facts:-.

    i. We are not saying that this particular barn was used continuously for boat building, but the building and its surrounding area, Standard Quay, has a well documented historic association with the maritime activity of Standard Quay, Faversham, including ship building, maintenance and repair. In the hundred years 1742-1842 the following are recorded as being built at Standard Quay – 66 Smacks, 20 Coasters, hoys and packets, and 8 barges. As a grain store the black barn was an important part of the barge industry between London and Faversham. From the early 1990s the black barn was used for activity which successfully regenerated Standard Quay as a working boatyard from the early 1990’s to 2011 until the present owner terminated their leases.

    This remaining quayside is the only part of Standard Quay still potentially available for this industry with its access to outside working areas. Up and down the Thames these sites have gone, and Faversham itself has very few remaining suitable moorings.

    ii. Whatever the condition of the building now, what relevance does that have to support it being a restaurant?

    iii. Inflammatory and ill advised statement.

    iv. Cambria used a good deal of quay side which is no longer available for maritime maintenance activity. One of the reasons that the original barge repairing interest had to leave was that the new owner forbade the use of the quay land. Sail painting requires a lot of space.

    v. There is no apparent evidence of any of these workshops being available to ship building or repair. There was a greater demand which was curtailed by the new owner of Standard Quay.

    vi. See no 1.

    vii. The owner of Standard Quay has proved beyond doubt, through the removal of necessary infrastructure and by the removal of rights of use the quayside itself, and refusal to renew the leases held by the barge industry at the Quay, that he does not support Barge owners.

    viii. This is a Grade 2 listed building, which at the point of purchase the owner took on a duty to repair, regardless of the outcome of any planning application.[If he cannot afford it he should sell it to someone more caring – my addition] He has already carried out alterations to this grade II listed building without permission.

    ix The black barn was not derelict when the owner bought it – it was the centre of a thriving business.

    You can put a restaurant anywhere but you cannot put a barge in a field. Anything that will generate more traffic to that end of Abbey Street, both travelling and parking, will be detrimental to the medieval street it has to pass through.

    1 – must be done regardless. 2 – restaurant work is everywhere, shipbuilding was here, and could be again. 3 – The barges brought tourists from all over the world. 4&5 – Chandleries, shipwrights, exhibition of Cambria, even little associated shops in the buildings well away from the working quay would thrive. 6 – This was already an attraction.

    NB The building is known as the black barn. It has never been a corn exchange; that would be a grand stone building in the centre of town, where the buying and selling of grains took place.

    Two private citizens of Faversham with no interest in the Quay (monetary or ownership) other than a wish not to see this area destroyed forever.

  2. Harold Goodwin

    One of the reasons that I admire councillors is that democracy is seen to be done, they meet in public and they are accountable through elections. They operate on the record and follow established rules of democratic procedure.

    I do not think that the Swale Planners are incompetent, my point in the letter to the newspapers was that I did not think it necessary for the Faversham Society to do their job for them. It seems to me that many people in Faversham are perplexed that the Society has not campaigned for the conservation of the Creek’s industrial heritage.

    I am not an expert on marine matters, nor am I a member of any marine or boating organisation, which makes it particularly odd that you should think I would stand as a ship building candidate.

    I applaud the stand which Faversham Town Council and the Swale Borough Council have taken over Standard Quay, in public and on the record.

    Those who mutter about the inaccuracies in the film should now put them on the record publicly.


    Readers of the blogs on this site may be interested to know that according to the Minutes of the Faversham Creek Consortium Management Group held on 16th May, a committee which you Chair, item 6 records that, apparently without dissent, the committee questioned the wisdom of the Swale Borough Council Planning Committee:
    “It was questioned whether the grounds for refusal woudl stand up on appeal and concern was expressed about the cost to the taxpayer of the costs were awarded against the SBC.”
    Difficult to accept the decision of democratically elected councillors when it goes against your interest?

    1. Mike Cosgrove

      please you read the minutes, as they are available to all unlike some other organisations. You do jump to a lot of assumptions with little evidence, one of which is that the planning process always ends with a committee decison. Unfortunately it does not, and the appeal process with a government appointed inspector creates another uknown decision outcome outside of local determination..It is not in my interest that costs could be awarded against SBC because that money could be better spent in Faversham- was that your assumption of my interest? My experience of the Faversham society tells me that indeed have over the years it fought hard for our industrial heritage, for example chart mills, and indeed the granary on standard quay some 7 years ago. My question would be – can you evidence in the last 20 years what you have achieved in the Society to influence their approach? Were you ever a member of the planning committee?

  3. Mike Cosgrove

    Well said Harold, let us challenge the mutterers together, can you explain why the Faversham Society and Swale Planners are incompetent, or why didnt you stand in the recent election as a shipbuilding candidate?
    What is the basis of your expertise on maritime issues, will you be at the exhibition?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s